Happier diner Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 44 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: Wouldn't it be hilarious if the "arm's length" Steamie turned around and said "Feck off, we're not accepting these fees and conditions" to use Liverpool Terminal? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 At what point does, or did, the SPCO turn from a wise purchase with a guaranteed revenue stream for Government into a taxpayers millstone ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, asitis said: At what point does, or did, the SPCO turn from a wise purchase with a guaranteed revenue stream for Government into a taxpayers millstone ? Right about…… ………now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 (edited) 29 minutes ago, asitis said: At what point does, or did, the SPCO turn from a wise purchase with a guaranteed revenue stream for Government into a taxpayers millstone ? As soon as it became evident that their 'arms length' are as long as a T Rex. Of course the rest of us knew this would be the outcome all along. Edited March 20 by The Phantom 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omobono Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 18 minutes ago, asitis said: At what point does, or did, the SPCO turn from a wise purchase with a guaranteed revenue stream for Government into a taxpayers millstone ? 18 minutes ago, asitis said: At what point does, or did, the SPCO turn from a wise purchase with a guaranteed revenue stream for Government into a taxpayers millstone ? only when the dead hand of government got involved , if were not careful it will be an albatross around our necks and worse still anyone with experience or knowledge of operating a shipping company will not wish to get involved with it then the muppets in Tynwald and the government experts will eventually run it into the ground or price it out or existence 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 After Tynwald has thrown £squillions of taxpayers money at Half Tide Dock to turn it into a viable berth I've no doubt they're now all sitting back astonished that Peel Ports are going charge handsomely for it's use. After all it's the bright, shiney, brand-new addition to the Peel Ports money-making portfolio! From zero to hero you could say. The zero being the £amount it's cost Peel Ports... Errrr shouldn't the onward costs have been part of the original agreement...? No doubt lessons will be learned from the whole farrago (again and again ad infinitum...) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted March 21 Author Share Posted March 21 19 minutes ago, P.K. said: After Tynwald has thrown £squillions of taxpayers money at Half Tide Dock to turn it into a viable berth I've no doubt they're now all sitting back astonished that Peel Ports are going charge handsomely for it's use. I don't think it's PP who will be charging, it's IoMG/Treasury who are trying to rent it out to their own "arm's length" operation, the Steamie. Notwithstanding that the land is leased long-term from PP and will return at the expiry of the lease. But being arm's length, the Steamie are quite within their rights to hard-bargain and even walk away if they don't like the terms? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, P.K. said: After Tynwald has thrown £squillions of taxpayers money at Half Tide Dock to turn it into a viable berth I've no doubt they're now all sitting back astonished that Peel Ports are going charge handsomely for it's use. After all it's the bright, shiney, brand-new addition to the Peel Ports money-making portfolio! From zero to hero you could say. The zero being the £amount it's cost Peel Ports... Errrr shouldn't the onward costs have been part of the original agreement...? No doubt lessons will be learned from the whole farrago (again and again ad infinitum...) You couldn't make it up. Err, you did. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 8 hours ago, Non-Believer said: I don't think it's PP who will be charging, it's IoMG/Treasury who are trying to rent it out to their own "arm's length" operation, the Steamie. Notwithstanding that the land is leased long-term from PP and will return at the expiry of the lease. But being arm's length, the Steamie are quite within their rights to hard-bargain and even walk away if they don't like the terms? Thanks for that. But surely what's at stake is the IOMSPCo bottom line which transmogrifies itself into a government divvy? Minus operational costs of course which would include forward purchases that need to be made. Surely the advantage of the arrangement is that both sides know the figures so why is it seemingly contentious? Interesting times ahead... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 I wouldn't be surprised if the lease agreement for the LPL facility isn't rolled into Sea Services Agreement (that's now being reviewed). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swoopy2110 Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 (edited) https://manx.news/manannan-requires-minor-modification-for-new-terminal/?feed_id=5587&_unique_id=65fc59d16fbcb&fbclid=IwAR12j75rKluquh-AMGHRKfG5s53N3DxZlBSWtRy4SWj244JA0vjmsQRqVIg Slight modifications needed to the Manannan to get it to be able to get people off at the custom built from scratch terminal 🤪 Edited March 21 by swoopy2110 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevlar Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Just now, Andy Onchan said: I wouldn't be surprised if the lease agreement for the LPL facility isn't rolled into Sea Services Agreement (that's now being reviewed). That is the obvious thing to do. Otherwise what’s to stop the SPC turning round and saying that they can sail to Birkenhead cheaper than it would cost to take out a lease on the new terminal and telling Treasury to FO as it doesn’t make commercial sense to take out an additional lease over the new facility? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 "The Speaker of the House of Keys himself saying its had a “rushed delivery timescale, which was inadequately planned and proved to be hopelessly ambitious in its initial budgeting”. "Work initially began in November 2019 and was expected to have been completed by August 2021, but delays have seen the completion date moved back. " I wonder what the non-rushed timescale would have been. [I know what you are going to say - "Covid"] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 32 minutes ago, swoopy2110 said: https://manx.news/manannan-requires-minor-modification-for-new-terminal/?feed_id=5587&_unique_id=65fc59d16fbcb&fbclid=IwAR12j75rKluquh-AMGHRKfG5s53N3DxZlBSWtRy4SWj244JA0vjmsQRqVIg Slight modifications needed to the Manannan to get it to be able to get people off at the custom built from scratch terminal 🤪 However SeaCat has been refurbished ! https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2024-03-21/manannan-to-return-to-service-with-refurbished-facilities-for-liverpool-sailings# Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x-in-man Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 This is all just bloody wrong. Heads need to roll, and roll now. FFS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.